1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance, but excluding the part of “3. Execution Suspension” and “4. Conclusion”) except for the modification of the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2.On the 4th page of the amended part, the following shall be added:

【Administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an indivative administrative disposition, shall be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition, and even in cases where a teleological interpretation is allowed taking into account the legislative intent and purpose of such administrative laws and regulations, it shall not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language and text thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du47686, Nov. 24, 2016; 2017Du33824, Jun. 29, 2017; 2016Du64982, Feb. 28, 2018).

【 위반한 것이다. 그런데 이 사건 고시 제4조 제3항 및 [별표 3] 중 2의 나.항은 ‘서로 다른 오염지역에서 반출되었거나 서로 다른 토양오염물질로 오염된 토양, 처리방법을 달리하는 오염토양 등을 혼합하여 보관하여서는 아니된다‘라고 규정하고 있는바, 위 조항에서 규정한 “혼합 混合: 混(섞을 혼), 合(합할 합) ”의 사전(辭典 적 의미는 ’뒤섞어서 한데 합함‘인바, 위 조항의 “혼합하여 보관”이란 그 문언 및 위에서 본 침익적 행정처분의 근거가 되는 행정법규의 해석 원칙상, 서로 다른 오염토양이 실제로 혼합되어 보관되는 것을 의미하는 것이지, 이 사건의 경우와 같이 특정 오염토양이 처리방법을...